Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/218

Mrs.Puja Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Micromax service Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

23 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

 

Complaint No. CC/15/218 of 30/09/2015

Decided on 23/12/2015

 

Puja Puri wife of Sh. Pawan Puri Advocate, aged about 53 years, 206, Sewak Colony, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

 

The Micromax Service Centre, Near 22 Number Phatak, Patiala.

….Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : In person.

For Opposite party : Ex-parte.

 

ORDER

D. R. ARORA, PRESIDENT:

1. It is the case of the complainant that she had purchased a mobile hand set make Micromax A 121 bearing IMEI no. 911367151430221 on 10/10/2014 for Rs.8400/- from its dealer namely M/s Virk Electricals, Lehal Colony, Patiala. Since from the date of the purchase, there had been a problem in the charging of the battery. The battery worked for half an hour and thereafter the mobile phone would give indication regarding the battery charging problem. The complainant lodged the complaint with the dealer aforesaid many a times who failed to satisfy the complainant. Complainant could not contact the concerned service Centre as earlier she was not in a position to move due to collar bone fracture. The complainant visited the service centre on 25th August 2015 but Mr. Amar refused to take the mobile hand set. She again visited the aforesaid complaint centre on 31/8/2015 when the same was found lying closed at 6 PM. She again visited the aforesaid service centre on 01/09/2015 but Mr. Amar refused to check the mobile hand set and advised her to leave the mobile hand set but refused to issue the receipt, which he was bound to issue while taking the mobile hand set in his custody but inspite of the request of the complainant he remarked that she could file the complaint to any body she likes. At that time one Mr. Dhiraj Babbar of the OP called the complainant and checked the mobile hand set and after the checking the mobile phone, he disclosed that battery of the mobile phone was out of order and the same was required to be replaced. He also disclosed that warranty of the battery was only for six months.

2. On 2/9/2015 complainant visited the dealer namely Virk Electricals, Lehal Colony, Patiala who disclosed that there was no defect in the battery as the same was OK and that the same was not getting charged there being a fault in the mobile hand set, meaning-thereby that mobile phone will not work even with the replacement of the battery. It is further averred by the complainant that since she could not make use of the mobile hand set since from its purchase, she has suffered the loss because she purchased the mobile hand set in connection with her profession . Therefore it is alleged that she is entitled to a compensation for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony as also the loss suffered in the profession besides the refund of the price of the mobile hand set of Rs.8400/-. She also served the OP with legal notice in this regard but to no effect. Hence this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act) .

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

4. In the ex-parte evidence, complainant produced Ex.CA her sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed her evidence.

5. Complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence on record.

6. It is the case of the complainant that her mobile phone having gone defective with regard to the charging of the battery, she had approached the OP on 25th August 2015 but Mr. Amar concerned employee of the OP refused to take the mobile hand set and the complainant again visited the aforesaid complaint centre on 31/8/2015 when the same was found lying closed at 6 PM. Then she again visited the OP on 01/09/2015 but Mr. Amar refused to check the mobile hand set and further refused to issue the receipt regarding the deposit of the mobile hand set and remarked that she could file the complaint any where. One Mr. Dhiraj Babbar of the OP checked the mobile hand set, who disclosed that battery of the mobile phone was out of order and the same required to be replaced. Then she approached the dealer of the mobile hand set who disclosed that battery was OK and the problem was in the mobile hand set and that mobile hand set will not work even with the replacement of the battery. The complainant has approached this forum after having got the OPs served with legal notice dt. 03/09/2015 Ex.C-2 which was sent through registered post on 04/9/2015 as would appear from Ex.C-1 the copy of the postal receipt. OP has opted not to contest the claim of the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint go un-rebutted and the same are supported by the affidavit of the complainant going to show that she was not attended to by the OP in the matter of rectifying the defect in the mobile hand set and the same amounted to a deficiency in service. We therefore, accept the complaint and direct the OP to accept the mobile hand set of the complainant against a job sheet and to rectify the defect, if any, within seven days and deliver the same back after obtaining a note of satisfaction from the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is accepted with cost assessed at Rs.2000/- which is inclusive of the amount of compensation on account of harassment, mental agony experienced by the complainant as also the deficiency in service.

Pronounced

Dated: 23/12/2015.

 

Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D. R. Arora

Member Member President